DEV RAJ LATA Vs. SANJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant, against the order dated 06.02.2007 passed by learned District Judge, whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-defendant being Appeal No.49/06- Dev Raj Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr., and upheld the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Churu allowing plaintiffs' application u/s 13 (5) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1950') resulting into striking off of the defence of the petitionerdefendant on the point of second default in payment of rent to the landlord. The suit shop, situated in Churu, was initially let out to the petitioner-tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month prior to 1987. There was default in payment of rent by the petitioner-tenant from 19.08.1987 to 31.07.1998 for about 12 years.

(2.) Learned trial court determined the provisional rent under Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1950 vide order dated 20.02.2003, determining the arrear of rent for the period 01.06.1995 to 28.02.2008 for 92 months @ 200/- per month at Rs.18,400/- and interest on that of Rs.4,186/-, total arrears of rent of Rs.22,580/-. The said amount, however, was deposited with a delay of six days by the petitionertenant on 20.03.2003 in the trial court.

(3.) Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the petitionertenant urged that there was reasonable and sufficient cause in the said delay of six days in depositing the arrear of rent as determined by the learned trial court and, therefore, the time period of fifteen days given under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 1950 ought to have been extended by the learned trial court and, therefore, defence of the tenant could not be struck off. The learned appellate court below in the impugned order dated 06.02.2007, has held that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nassiruddin Vs. Sita Ram Agarwal,2003 DNJ 180, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, do not apply in these cases under the Rent Control Law and, therefore, the delay of six days was fatal to the defendant-tenant and the defence of tenant deserves to be struck off under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950, resulting into struck of his defence.